By Ekuson Nw’Ogbunka in Abuja
The Nigeria Immigration Service is simultaneously celebrating a generation of senior officers who spent 35 years in public service and defending its passport-issuance procedures over a controversy involving Mrs Rebecca Omokamo Godwin-Isaac. While the Service insists the disputed passport was issued months before her arraignment and without any notification of a travel restriction, questions raised by lawyers and the subsequent ministerial investigation have placed the agency’s passport-control processes under public scrutiny.
The contrasting developments present two sides of the NIS at a time when the integrity of Nigeria’s immigration and border-management systems is attracting increasing attention.
A farewell to 35 years of service
The NIS recently held a grand valedictory session in Abuja for four senior officers who retired after 35 years of service.
They are D.M. Bagari, former Deputy Comptroller-General, Planning, Research and Statistics; A. Obianime, former Deputy Comptroller-General, ICT and Cybersecurity; A.R. Sabo, former Deputy Comptroller-General, Border Management; and A.M. Halliday, former Assistant Comptroller-General, Migration Directorate.
Representing Comptroller-General K.N. Nandap, Deputy Comptroller-General F.U. Nwanneka praised the retirees for what the Service described as outstanding leadership, dedication and contributions to institutional development.
The ceremony brought together senior officials, colleagues, relatives and friends to celebrate the officers’ careers and legacy.
Their retirement comes at a period when the NIS is increasingly expected to combine institutional experience with technology-driven passport administration, biometric verification and stronger border controls.
The passport controversy
Against that background, the dispute involving Godwin-Isaac has generated questions about the operation of those controls.
The NIS says Passport No. B51450551 was issued on February 15, 2025, following an application for reissuance submitted on February 5. Godwin-Isaac was not arraigned before the Federal High Court until June 18, 2025—about four months later.
The Service therefore argues that it could not have violated a court order that did not exist or had not been formally communicated to it when the passport was issued.
That chronology is important because the central allegation reported earlier was that a second passport was issued while the earlier passport was still valid and reportedly in court custody. Lawyers representing a complainant had questioned how the new document was issued and petitioned the authorities for an investigation. The Interior Minister subsequently ordered a probe into the matter.
Two questions that should not be confused
The NIS has drawn a distinction between when the passport was issued and what happened after the court became involved.
On the first question, the Service’s position is that the passport was issued before Godwin-Isaac’s arraignment and before the relevant court order.
On the second, the Service says any obligation to surrender the passport arose from the subsequent court proceedings and was therefore a matter involving compliance with the court’s directive.
The distinction matters because the two issues involve different responsibilities: the administrative process by which the passport was issued, and compliance with a judicial order after the court proceedings commenced.
The unresolved administrative questions
The ministerial investigation reported earlier means that the controversy cannot be settled solely by the chronology supplied by the NIS.
The important questions include what information was available in the immigration records when the February 2025 application was processed, why the earlier passport was replaced, what verification procedures were followed and whether all applicable requirements were satisfied.
The NIS has said that Godwin-Isaac met the applicable requirements, including identity and biometric verification, before the new passport was issued. Its official passport guidance also states that applicants for renewal of an unexpired passport are required to appear with their passport booklet for photograph and biometric data capture.
Earlier reports, however, quoted lawyers alleging that the disputed passport was processed through a non-appearance procedure and raising questions about the status of the earlier passport. Those allegations have not been established by an independent finding.
Travel after arraignment
Another dimension of the controversy concerns reports that Godwin-Isaac travelled to Rwanda, the United Arab Emirates and the United Kingdom after her arraignment.
The NIS says it had not received a court order, watchlist instruction or other formal notification directing it to restrict her international travel at the relevant time.
This is significant because immigration authorities can only implement a judicial travel restriction when the relevant order or directive is properly communicated to them. The Service says timely notification is necessary for such restrictions to be entered into the appropriate border-management systems.
What the investigation should establish
The eventual findings of the investigation should help separate three issues that have become intertwined in public discussion: the legality of the passport issuance, the status of the earlier passport, and compliance with subsequent court orders.
The NIS has pledged to cooperate with any lawful investigation and make its records available to competent authorities.
For the Service, the matter is ultimately about preserving confidence in Nigeria’s passport and border-management system. For the courts and investigators, the task is to establish from documentary and biometric records what happened at each stage.
Until those processes are concluded, allegations of irregularity should remain distinguished from established facts.
The broader significance goes beyond one passport. Nigeria’s passport system is a critical identity and border-management infrastructure, and public confidence depends on clear records, effective biometric controls, proper communication of court restrictions and transparent investigation whenever questions arise. The NIS’s own current passport procedures emphasise biometric enrolment and verification as part of passport issuance.
The juxtaposition of the NIS’s celebration of 35 years of institutional service with the passport controversy is therefore striking: the retirement ceremony highlights the importance of professional legacy, while the ongoing scrutiny underscores the continuing need for strong systems, accountability and public confidence in the Service.
The online version deliberately avoids treating either the NIS’s defence or the allegations against it as conclusively established; the available reporting confirms that a ministerial investigation was ordered and that the NIS has now provided its own chronology and explanation.
